Talk:Giraffe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Image location

To Adrian re the lefthand image location. The lower location looks silly on my screen. The higher location looks silly on your screen. I assume this is a screen res thing :(.... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC).

== Color variants vs. subspecies == color blind

Using color varient to descibe subspecies is a bit odd to my eye. (Googling giraffe "color variants" turns up very few hits; and most of them are Wikipedia or derivative.) I'm updating to include the nine generally accepted subspecies, plus a note about other classification breakdowns Carter 20:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Creationist bent of evolution section

I just adore that evolution section. It seems it was written by a creationist who doesn't know he is. ^_^ He comes SO close to saying "come to think of it, giraffes are pretty good evidence against evolution" without quite getting there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.230.154 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, I noticed that part, something about a sage following every giraffe and noticing what happens, all leading to the conclusion "giraffes are the way they are because someone designed them". This was NOT written by an "intelligent design person who didn't know it." This must have been written by a concious and aware ID person. That part should be removed. Of course scientists did not directly observe evolution in action but it is the accepted theory and ID is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.3.210.170 (talk • contribs) .

the evolution section

Quoting the article:

While the ecological niche which at least male giraffes utilize is only used by a single other species, the African Elephant, there has been no selective forces to maintain the length of the giraffe's neck.

I think that does not make much sense. The conservation of a trait is not maintained mainly by competition between different species for the same niche, but rather, by competition among individuals of the same species. In fact, if there are two species competing for the same niche, one is likely either to go extinct or to adapt to another niche. The following phrase is no much better:

It may be that the long neck originally evolved when the benefit of filling the ecological niche was more pronounced due to the presence of other giant ungulates in Africa, which are now extinct.

It is the same logic. Species are not willingly trying to compete against each other, to take away a niche that's already taken. A niche is more likely to be filled when it is empty, rather than when there's more competition for it. Under the assumption that what drove the evolution of giraffe's neck was the ability it gives to reach more food, that would more likely have happened because all the lower food was already being taken by smaller animals, not by giant ones. Then would be an advantage to reach higher, when there's plenty of food with no one else to eat.

I guess that the giraffe's neck evolved and is still maintained mainly by sexual selection. I do not know for sure, I'll research a little bit in the subject eventually and post here. But it has the usual characteristics of a trait evolved by ss. It exaggerated, and apparently, not that necessary to survival, if not a hinderance or nearly.

Also, the mainteanance of the neck size is not something that requires an extraordinary explanation. The giraffe is adapted to its niche. And its niche, at least for now, requires long necks. It would only "shirnk" along evolution if gradually shorter necks for some reason were being more reproductively advantageous than longer ones. --Extremophile 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything you say is quite reasonable. I'm a bit concerned, however, that the whole 'evolution' section is a single editors speculation on the neck rather than the scientific consensus. I think we need to insist on sources, as most of the section is quite speculative and probably doesn't belong in an encyc article. Ashmoo 04:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

thats what this is for, we are speculating with logical arguments, thats the only way to really prove anything with evolution, without asking a very intelegent scholar giraffe or some higher being :)

Long Or short necks

I just read this artice from the Nature Institute [1]. Do you think its relavent? Nadiasama 02:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Very much so, yes. I think it will be tough to integrate its points, though. :-/ Ruakh 16:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the capital 'G'?

Why does this article spell "Giraffe" with a capital G? Is that just a mistake, or is there a reason for it? Ruakh 21:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no one responded, so I changed it. Ruakh 16:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Seven or 8 Vertebrae?

On this website http://www.awf.org/wildlives/118 it says that there are only 7 vertebrae. Look at the very bottom of the page. 86.131.11.126 11:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

ALL mammals have SEVEN vertebrae (except manatees and sloths). http://wwworm.biology.uh.edu/evodevo/lecture11/galis99.pdf

Ossicones

The article states: "They also have slightly elongated forelegs, about 10% longer than their hind legs. These bones produce bud-like horns called ossicones." To me that says that ossicones grow on foreleg bones. But the ossicone article and some other articles I Googled say ossicones grow on a giraffe's head. Should it be foreleg or head? Art LaPella 21:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Resolved

Art LaPella 19:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Horns

What are they for? DavidFarmbrough 12:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

breaking each others necks in fights for mates or food, [2] (i really wanted to respond with 'for beating the living ---- out of each other, cos its brutal, this is a friendly dispute [3])

Proposal to merge out the Evolutionary perspectives section and cut the WP:OR.

As I read it it's been sitting around uncited for quite a while. From the 1st para, 2nd sentence on starting with "However" etc I call it WP:OR. The 2nd paragraph is already done in the article and cited with the ref to "Robert E. Simmons and Lue Scheepers: Winning by a neck: Sexual selection in the evolution of giraffe. The American Naturalist, 148 (1996): pp. 771-786.". Wikipedia would go to the dogs if every animal article had some evolutionary commentary unless it is related to a current controversy between notable commentators (a very rare situation indeed). I don't see this with the giraffe. It does contain some snippits but these are already referenced and cited so it's an empty section really. Ttiotsw 16:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/495e171c43c091cb/4741e3c5156499a7/b807e227/-cpid/99cc2a66cb3082f3" id="W4727a250e66f9723495e171c43c091cb" width="384" height="283"><param name="movie" value="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/495e171c43c091cb/4741e3c5156499a7/b807e227/-cpid/99cc2a66cb3082f3" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /></object>< this is not true>

This article is very well written. It touches on many fascinating topics, and is obviously NPOV. The images are well used, and add to the article as nicely as the text. I've place this nomination on hold, however, because of concerns over references, and suggestions that may warrant additions. Many statements are made in the article that really need very thorough referencing. For example, "Giraffes are thought to be mute. However, recent research has shown evidence that the animal communicates at an infrasound level." Thought by whom? Who did this research? The inline citations are sporadic and, in certain sections, missing entirely. The presence of "citation needed" templates in the text makes this unsuitable for good article status presently, but since these changes are ones that could be made easily within a week, I decided to place the nomination on hold. Furthermore, I two content concerns, but I think they are easily fixed in an article of this length, and hence I've waited before failing on this account. Basically, my chief concern is that the first reference cited is in the infobox and lists the giraffe as threatened. Unfortunately, this is a very loose end since there is no exploration of any sort of conservation efforts, or any mention of the actual threats facing the giraffe. I would suggest a section dealing with human/giraffe interaction, including threats, efforts made to preserve the animal, etc. I would also suggest a section in culture and literature, though this can be done bulleted, or in summary, and is also doable in seven days, even if not as thorough as it could be (this is for good article, not featured, after all!). I enjoyed this article! Good job to those who contributed! Cheers! Chuchunezumi 00:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please note that the intention to improve this article in the suggested ways must be announced here within the next twenty-four hours in order to maintain the seven day hold; please make it clear whether these can be accomplished, and whether they are planned. I cannot fathom these changes will be able to be accomplished in any less time. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 01:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, as nobody has rushed to address these issues, and also because there still seems to be several edits still in progress raising further stability issues, I regret I have to fail this article. I encourage the editors to address these concerns and then renominate this article. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 02:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The section Other Behavior needs revision. It is not true that a giraffe has a "specially-adapted tongue and lips that appear to be immune to the vicious thorns [of acacia trees.]" See a botany website (Wayne's Word) with pictures of the great big thorns in question. The author explains that a giraffe uses its extremely long, prehensile tongue to wrap around tender acacia leaves and pluck them. It would be most helpful to link to relevant Wayne's Word photographs (which are copyright W.P. Armstrong on his site) or to someone else who has seen African giraffes in action. Msk49 17:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

how many spine bones giraffe have ?

how meny spine bones giraffe have ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.68.48.212 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

• work on your spelling, please
  • Please don't bite the newcomers.... the answer is that a giraffe has as many bones in its aspine as any other mammel - see that article for details.
    • Please sign your comments. There is no link to an article titled mammel. The article about mammals can be found here. Spelling is important. Comme le Lapin 07:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the opening paragraph, the article states "Males can be 4.8 to 5.5 metres (16 to 18 feet) tall", while in teh "Physical characteristics" section, it states "Male giraffes are around 15–17 feet tall". Can someone find out what is right and correct thinsg accordingly? Tompw (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's probably 48 to 50 feet tall. :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps people who don't know about giraffes shouldn't contribute to articles about giraffes. Just a suggestion. Comme le Lapin 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In the article about The African Bush Elephant it states that the Male can be anywhere from 19-24 feet tall, much higher than what it says of the giraffe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.148.200 (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

That's simply incorrect. Giraffes grow as tall as 18 feet, and maybe a few inches more, while African elephants grow to a height of 13 feet. Unfortunately, 24-foot tall elephants can only be found in Tolkien. Comme le Lapin 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read the African Bush Elephant article, and the 19-24 feet you were referring to is not their height, but their length. This is correct. Comme le Lapin 07:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Anatomy and Morphology" section states "Wild giraffes have a lifespan close to 13 years while those in captivity live up to 25 years." while the "Reproduction" section states "the life expectancy is between 20 and 25 years in the wild and 28 years in captivity." --Mike Spiz (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the quoted weight and height are still visible throughout the article. Hesitant to edit myself as I have no idea what the correct figures should be. 220.253.154.159 (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

black tongues to prevent sunburn?

This needs a citation. The san diego zoo only says "Some people think the color is to keep the tongue from getting sunburned.", they don't say that's why its black. A stronger scientifc source for the statement in the article would be most welcome. --Matthew 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's true, given as how okapis also have black tongues like giraffes, and they don't expose themselves to bright light.--Mr Fink 03:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Baby Giraffes

When baby giraffes are born, are their bones already entirely fused together or do they fuse while the baby is growing similar to human beings? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.243.193.254 (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

I have a new question (and suggestion for article, if someone can verify this!) about their babies: Is it true that baby giraffes are born FEET-first instead of head-first? If I could document this, I would have edited the article itself, since I believe it would be something quite interesting for all readers to know; especially since the present comment on their birth, "The mother gives birth standing up and the embryonic sack usually bursts when the baby falls to the ground." probably leaves most of us with the impression their babies merely fall out like a blob of jelly! But, according to some film footage I saw last month of a giraffe being born; which I really wish I could recall the details of what I was watching, that's far from the truth (at least, in the instance I observed, which was out on some wild plain in Africa, not in a zoo). It may have been a Rothschild_giraffe, but I can no longer be certain of that at all. Daniel B. Sedory 09:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Paris

In 1827, someone brought back a Giraffe whom was named Zarafa to Paris where it roamed the city where it amazed the townspeople and royalty alike. Such an animal had almost never been seen by anyone living in Europe at the time. I feel such inforamtion is relavent and related to the article section that makes refrence to: Chinese painting of a giraffe brought by Admiral Zheng He and placed in a Ming Dynasty zoo (AD 1414)

The Nubian Giraffe, by Jacques-Laurent Agasse (c.1827), depicts one of the three giraffes sent to Europe by Mehmet Ali Pasha. This one was received by George IV in London. The gentleman shown in the top hat is Edward Cross, operator of the menagerie at Exeter Exchange and then Royal Surrey Gardens. Also shown are the giraffe's Egyptian attendants, and, in the background, the Egyptian cows that supplied the young giraffe with milk from the mother.

• http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4309/is_200505/ai_n15021019
• http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_11_19/ai_57564236
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarafa
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici_giraffe

--Root Beers 06:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Taxobox

Is there a reason why the taxobox is blue, not pink? Abbott75 09:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

fixed. -Nunh-huh 09:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Largest land animals

The list of land animals by size starts:

1. Elephant
2. Rhinoceros
3. Hippopotamus

I can't find anywhere online a site that reveals what comes next in this sequence. I suspect somewhere within the next 10 ranks is the giraffe. Anyone able to know the giraffe's rank?? (If the giraffe's rank is not exactly 4, please complete this list to include everything in between.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Georgia guy (talk • contribs) 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

There is much dispute whether or not the Rhino or Hippo is the second biggest land animal as they two are virutally identical and various individuals of each spiecies varies a lot 4.142.66.201 03:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Nick

Reason for long necks

Recent studies by Robert Simmons and Lue Scheepers in Africa have found that giraffes do not have long necks for the sole purpose of obtaining food. Instead, when observed most giraffes eat at shoulder level. The long neck is a result of mating. Male giraffes fight over females by wrapping their necks around eachother. The one with the longer neck usually has more force and wins the right to breed with the female. As a result the gene for the long neck increases within the population because it increases the giraffes chances for breeding. The research is fairly new in 1990. http://www.word-detective.com/howcome/giraffeneck.html.66.213.216.26 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about the gallery

This is a good article but I have concerns over the use of the gallery. I do not feel that the bottom three rows add much to the article. If the reader was after giraffe photos they could easily do an image search on Google or similar. I feel each photo should try to teach a new point about giraffes, at least describe which subspecies they are.

Also is it relavent pointing out in captions which zoo the photo was taken in? If this is absolutely needed could it not be put in the description on the image page as opposed to in this article?

I look forward to reading any comments. --Mehmet Karatay 16:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree - this is what comons is for and there's a linkcheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We have removed the images that did not add to the article. Three of them were not on commons, so need to be put there. We don't have the time to do that right now. The images are: Image:GiraffeBW.jpg Image:Reticulated giraffe kenya.jpg Image:Reticulated giraffes.jpg Mehmet Karatay 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done Mehmet Karatay 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sauropod

Sauropod -- is there a way to incorporate ancestry of this creature into the article? 70.5.127.162 18:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Come again? Sauropods and giraffes have nothing to do with each other. Any similarities, such as their long necks, are due to convergent evolution. -- Milo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.2.42 (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The head of Giraffe from Melbourne Zoo

I'm not disputing the relevance of the section, but I'm disputing the relevance of using that FP image at the right

Giraffe portrait, taken at the Melbourne Zoo

in Social structure and breeding habits section.I suggest using the image on the left instead.

A mother and a baby giraffe in San Francisco ZOO

In my opinion the image on the left is much more relevant to both Social structure and breeding habits, than a single Giraffe's head from Melbourne Zoo. Please tell me what do you think and please explain in few words why you think this way or another. Thanks.--Mbz1 22:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Subsection "Cleaning" contains information on feeding

The second sentence of the subsection on cleaning appears tangential, and the third sentence more appropriately belongs in the subsection on feeding. The information it provides, however, is somewhat contradictory with the feeding section's claim that giraffes prefer trees of genus Mimosa because acacias form a distinct genus. Perhaps the two claims should be integrated to state giraffes prefer trees of the subfamily Mimosoideae, which includes both. Rriegs 09:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Lifstyle or Ecology?

Which better describs the section?

Please remember to sign your talk posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~

Ecology is a scientific term that contains all that lifestyle entails. As this is a zoological article, ecology is the preferred term. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Horn /Antler

Do they really have horns? Yes! Other related species have antlers. Calsium deposits sound like antler. This is hard because many languages do not have separate words. --JK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.218 (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Giraffes and okapis have ossicones.--Mr Fink 11:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Giraffes are kool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.66.222 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

How many Giraffes exist in the Wild? Are they being conserved? How? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.36.204 (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Silent vandalism that was missed

I noticed that on 5 May 2007, there's been a deletion of a whole paragraph about an interesting trivia about Giraffe's mating habits

Here is the link to the modification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giraffe&diff=128339945&oldid=128338766

Can somebody can put this referenced info back in ? The original paragraph was as follows:

Another function of necking is affectionate and sexual, in which two males will caress and court each other, leading up to mounting and climax. Same sex relations are more frequent than heterosexual behavior. In one area 94% of mounting incidents were of a homosexual nature. The proportion of same sex courtships varies between 30 and 75%, and at any given time one in twenty males will be engaged in affectionate necking behavior with another male. Females, on the other hand, only appear to have same sex relations in 1% of mounting incidents.

• • NOTE Below

Source: [4]

Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat

Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena....We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation.....With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)....With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations.

Dr. Bagemihl's interpretation, however, throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, "an imprint of St. Martin's Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books."

New taxonomy and naming coming soon??

It seems that with the newest genetic study we maybe forced soon to rewrite the whole topic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7156146.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wieszcz (talk • contribs) 00:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

"Lions are the only predators which poses a serious threat to an adult giraffe" Are you sure "pose" takes an "s" at the end here ?

-- (unsigned)

It should be "that pose"

SimonTrew (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Unit conversion

I think it's a mistake to say the giraffe's weight is "1360 kilograms" because this figure obviously comes from the "3000 pounds" conversion. All the readers understand that the "3000 pounds" weight is just a rough value (the maximum giraffe's weight is around 3000 pounds and nobody expects a precised figure) so the corresponding metric value should also be rough, for example "1400 kilograms". If we read "1360 kilograms" we should understand the maximum giraffe's weight is between 1350 and 1370 kilograms! It's practically impossible to make such measure because the giraffe makes just a blink and we get another measurement. --MarceloPinoQuivira (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition to article "Giraffe"

Giraffe is also a musical artist based in Toronto, Ontario. <myspace.com/coffeec2kes>

St.muertay (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You may want to refer this matter to the talkpage of Giraffe (disambiguation) as this article's subject is purely giraffes (animals) not anything named after them. AngelOfSadness talk 18:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

zebras are afeican —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.221.114.246 (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Website

Has anyone noticed that Giraffe Recruitment isn't even about Giraffes? It's only for jobs.-Warriorscourge (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Giraffes

Here is a link to an article talking about wild giraffes living in Vancouver, Canada. http://www.thebrutaltimes.com/?p=25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.81.90 (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Genuses v Genera

Not sure if this is quite the place to put this or to start a new section, but shouldn't "genuses" be "genera"? In daily life I tend to ignore these things (e.g people saying schemas instead of schemata or whatever) but in a technical section on taxonomy surely it should be right? SimonTrew (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it would have been better to put this at the bottom in its own section (as it is now) seeing as that other section was last active over a year ago (I had a little trouble finding your question). As you may have guessed there are two schools of thought regarding whether to maintain the Latin plural form for Latin words borrowed into English. Well, perhaps not borrowed, since we probably won't be giving them back.

Pedants (I used to be one) will insist that since genus is Latin, the plural should be genera. Most of these same pedants will also insist on using octopi when in fact octopodes is the grammatically correct plural form. The other school of thought is that these words are now English words and should therefore use English grammar rules.

So, it's probably really a matter of taste which way you choose to go. For most Wikipædia (ok, I'm showing off!) articles I would use whichever form is already in use, like with Brit. v US spelling on non-Brit/US articles. However, scientific-types who write about giraffes (and some of the other mammals with spots) pretty much use Latin/Greek grammar forms so, even tho' we're not a scientific paper, I would go with genera et al in articles about animals, plants, et cetera. So I'm gonna change it. Thanks for pointing it out. Secret Squïrrel, approx 12:15, 9 Fabruary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)

Yeah I pretty much agree with all that. One thing I *do* dislike is people who then get the anglicised plurals wrong-- e.g. bacterias. There are also sometimes useful distinctions e.g. media for the mass media, but mediums for psychics.

Thanks for making the change. SimonTrew (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I think I may have gone a little over the top there <Note to self: Don't edit late at night>. Bacterias is a classic. People also use media and criteria as singular. For some reason I say "polyhedra" when referring to the general category but "six tetrahedrons". Not really correct but there is logic there. Somewhere... Secret Squïrrel, approx 2:25, 10 Fabruary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)

media I think is now lost; criteria may be salvagable. It would be worth having a topic with a list of common Latin and greek words and their plurals. Otherwise we will have to cut off all their penides and shove em up their clitorides. SimonTrew (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hah! To be anatomically feasible I think we shall have to shove each of them up their respective recta. Secret Squïrrel, approx 1:00, 12 Fabruary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)

Yeah Wikipedia disdains Greek and Latin and quite right too. Even eg and ie people get confused between them (I have done too much subbing in my life to know that). Most old-fashioned hand edits people don't know any more the symbols and signs for edits. Put "stet" in a margin and people have no idea what you mean. To elimnate Latin and Greek is a good thing-- I was never taught them just learnt them myself-- but when used, should be used correctly I think. That does not mean angliciszed words *(which IMHO should be English) but words that are still Latin or Greek, such as the Linnaen classification. (Indeed that itself is Latin, Carl Linne (sp?) was Swedish). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 06:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh I remember now what it was I was gonna say about polyhedra etc. It actually makes sense really. If you take collective nouns like goverment, the government can be singular (the whole lot treated as one) or plural (the whole lot treated individually). So I think that is probably your logic. It is a useful distinction, as Fowler would put it. Technically of course it is incorrect but yeah who cares about Greek plurals, does it make sense to the people who you are talking to? That is why I wanted the change. I love language but am not up my arse about it. SimonTrew (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I used stet only 2 or 3 wks ago. One of the reasons that 'Ctrl-v is "paste" is because of the editor's mark for "insert" (plus it's next to 'x' and 'c', and 'p' was taken by "print"). I wasn't taught Lat./Gk. either but I have a strong interest in the life sciences and am a dino-nut so I've picked up quite a bit. I used to wonder why so many of the better-known scholars of the 16th-18th centuries were Latin. Your idea for an article listing commonly-used Latin and Greek words with their properly formed plurals might be worth doing if we can link it in with some suitable articles - disembodied lists tend to get deleted as cruft. Look, you spelt "arse" correctly ;-) Secret Squïrrel, bedtime

I tend to end up with the reverse problem that I try to make a singular inhabitant of the newest state of the Union a Hawaium (one Hawaium, two Hawaii...) and that kind of thing. SimonTrew (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

necking

May I please ask you to take a look at this nomination. I, myself strongly supported the image because I did not know what necking is about. Now I do after watching this behavior for almost half an hour. At first I thought it was a courtship dance( it really looked as a dance ) between a male and female. So I asked a zookeeper and he kindly explained to me what I was looking at. I still like the image File:Giraffe Ithala KZN South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG very much. It is high quality, high resolution image and most important it was taken in the wild! There's only one problem with the image. It does not show necking.here is drawing of few positions during necking. On April 12 I replaced File:Giraffe Ithala KZN South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG with male giraffes are necking in San Francisco Zoo.jpg my image in the section necking of Giraffe article. User Mgiganteus1 and user Secret Squïrrel are keeping removing it because they like the other one better.I do too. It is much better, but it just does not show what necking is about while my image does. User Mgiganteus1 admited that the replaced image "might have been taken during a brief interlude between neck strikes". Maybe, maybe not. Why to guess? Why not to use the image that does show necking with no second guess? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's , Secret Squïrrel, what necking of giraffes look like (not "a jumble of legs" but a real necking behavior) :

--Mbz1 (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Mila, I disagree with your assertion that your photos clearly show two males engaging in necking behaviour for the following reasons;

1. When two male ruminants fight for dominance or mating privileges, they usually face up to each other, as do most combatants. In your photos one giraffe is behind the other.
2. The position of the two giraffes and the angle from which you took the photos makes it difficult to see what is really going on.
3. In the photo that you have re-added, it looks like the smaller of the two might be nuzzling the neck of the other rather than thwacking it. In fact the smaller giraffe could very well be a female as it's testicles are not in view - we only have your word that it is male. Perhaps what you observed was a mating ritual.

I agree that the original photo doesn't actually show two giraffes hitting each other's necks, but it does clearly show their respective aggressive postures, and I think it is therefore a better picture to have in the article, but I'm happy to hear other opinions on this.

If you really don't like the original pic, are you able to return to SFZ and take a photo which more clearly depicts the behaviour?

I think it might be a good idea for other interested parties to comment on this but in the interim I'm going to restore the status quo. Secret Squïrrel 16:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder, if you have read and understood what I described in my prior comment. I thought it was courtship, but zookeeper said it was necking between two males. May I please ask you how many necking you observed to know what necking is? here's one for example. Do they always face up to each other? Do you really believe that if I go back to the ZOO I would see same behavior again? Oh well...--Mbz1 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, just for you, Secret Squïrrel, I uploaded one more image which clearly shows this part of a smaller giraffe you were missing in my other images. I hope now we at least could put to rest all the doubts about animals sex.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no justification for you to behave so personally toward me (as you have done here and at other pages) just because you and I don't necessarily agree on something. Accusing me of being in cohorts with another User who happened to edit the same page as me (and whom you also disagree with) is without basis and offensive. My only motivation is to improve Wikipedia and I'm sure yours is the same. <Back to the discussion at hand>... In my opinion, this last photo that you have uploaded more clearly shows the purported behaviour than any of the others. I don't know why you didn't just use this one at the start - it would have saved any argument on my part. I have substituted it for the prev pic. Secret Squïrrel 09:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Arts Culture - Company Mascots.

As well as Toys are Us Mascot. The Giraffe is also used prominently in the logo of Canadian Search Engine Marketing Company Searchlinqs. This Giraffe currently has no name but plays prominently in the branding of this company, which is emerging as a leader in that country.

Searchlinqs Giraffe

Searchengineman (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Grammar and others

I think that the sentence 'Lions are the only predators which pose a serious threat to an adult giraffe' is incorrect. It should be (in my opinion), 'Lions are tho only predators who pose a serious threat to an adult giraffe'.

Also, you only gave the average height and weight for the giraffe, (both male and female). I really need to know what the length and width they are. This article doesn't contain this particular information.

Cheers, Oceanassassin (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a picture showing clearly the height and length (but not actual size), you can use a ratio to find the length of a real giraffe, and then do the same for the width. And please check your spelling. 74.77.181.199 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Average length of the neck?

Could somebody please at this piece of information? Thanks. -- 91.11.235.54 (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Stereotypic Behaviors

I am confused about this sentence: "Due to the obvious social and cultural discomfort associated with the addition of milk delivery devices, animal enclosures are often enriched with other stimuli, such as food and mental distractions..." What obvious cultural discomfort? And what milk delivery services? Is this supposed to mean that people are offended at the sight of an animal drinking from a bottle? I am bewildered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.114.135 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Milk delivery

"Due to the obvious social and cultural discomfort associated with the addition of milk delivery devices"

What does this mean? It's not obvious to me.

Why is the article locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.68.180 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is locked because some homophobic, far-Right scumfuckers have been complaining about the article including information on homosexual behaviour among male giraffes. 124.170.130.114 (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed that nonsense as it is total bull. It wasnt sourced and has no place in the article. ZooPro 06:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Giraffe use in slang - semiprotected

I would enjoy a reference to the use of Giraffe as: In Nonviolent Communication, "giraffe language" refers to "language of the heart" because giraffes have the largest hearts of any land animal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anderka (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about the animal, not a dictionary. This kind of material would be suitable for Wiktionary, if it can be properly attested to using sources. Fences&Windows 19:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WTF? i agree with Fences and windows. ZooPro 06:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Predators

Can we get some info on what the giraffes natural predators are, if any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.251.114 (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.180.173.157, 5 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please delete the drawing of the giraffe skeleton and move the photo up in it's place. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.  Chzz  ►  01:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Giraffe speciation

I recently read an article on national geographic that said that the giraffe is actually a group of giraffe species. There are six different species, I would appreciate being able to write this on your wall. Thank you for your time.

neck circulatory system

I think that how the giraffe's pressure regulating system works should be explained in more detail. At each neck vertibrate there is a valve that opens when the head is raised and closes when the head is lowered. Also a sponge beneath the brain absorbs blood when the head is lowered and releases it when the head is raised. 74.77.181.199 (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Links

The link to Nubian Giraffe in the section subspecies redirects to the page Giraffe. Why should a page link to itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.181.199 (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.180.173.157, 17 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please place an extension tag on the section about the neck. The neck needs more info and should aleast have an extension request. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, but it would help other editors if you could explain more specifically what needs to be added. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Lifespan discrepancy

Under Anatomy and Morphology, it is stated that "Wild giraffes have a lifespan close to 13 years while those in captivity live up to 25 years."

Under Reproduction, it is stated that "the life expectancy is between 20 and 25 years in the wild and 28 years in captivity."

It would probably be wise to assess the sources and decide which carries the more accurate information.

JCRBOY (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect photo caption

{{editsemiprotected}} In the subspecies section one of the photos is mistakenly listed as G. c. peralta. This is incorrect, as there are no real G. c. peralta in European zoos. The ones formerly believed to be this subspecies are now known to be G. c. antiquorum (Kordofan Giraffe). This has been established through genetic work (for details, see Kordofan Giraffe or last part of West African Giraffe#Subspecies definition, with the specific reference). Either the caption should be corrected to G. c. antiquorum, or the photo should be changed to one showing the real G. c. peralta (there are currently three real G. c. peralta in commons: File:Giraffe 5.jpg, File:Giraffe koure niger 2006.jpg and File:Giraffe-solo Koure-NIGER.jpg). 212.10.95.14 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Giraffe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay -I will make straightforward copyedits as I go. I will jot questions down below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The family was once much more extensive, with numerous other species. - a number would be good if possible, even an approximation.

Done can be found in the Giraffidae article. LittleJerry (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The modern species, Giraffa camelopardalis, appeared during the Pleistocene 1 million years ago - needs cite (as noted)

Couldn't find a source so I removed it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Alan Turner mentioned is any one of the Alan Turners at the Alan Turner page.

Done Named his occupation and took out the link. LittleJerry (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Subspecies section needs converting into prose. I'll have a go at this probably when I get some time.

Please do so. I'm not good at that. LittleJerry (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Legs and pacing section needs references

Done LittleJerry (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As does the Circulatory system section

Done LittleJerry (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, more on the subspecies section - it is a little repetitive as is. Try and add a few facts to it - e.g. which is the commonest, biggest, rarest, most commonly seen in zoos. Just sprinkle a few extra bits in to break up the repetition - and get sources for each subspecies and the statements below it.

Done LittleJerry (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

conform the spellings - i.e. choose either Masai Giraffe or Maasai Giraffe (look into which is better) and stick to it. Both are in the article.

Done LittleJerry (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Be better to get a better source than this

Couldn't find any other source on which subspecies is more common only one that says what patterns are common in certain regions.LittleJerry (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorting out the history of its naming and am in the process of getting some sources. There is some other stuff to add. Giraffa was a nomen conservandum and it'd be great to get a scholarly article on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Subspecies: For most common in zoos you can use ISIS, which includes almost all zoos in Europe and North America, and many zoos elsewhere. A suggestion of how ISIS can be used as a reference is already in the lead of Somali Giraffe. Giraffe subspecies in zoos from ISIS data: Around 450 G. c. reticulata, around 450 G. c. rothschildi, around 100 G. c. tippelskirchi, around 65 G. c. antiquorum (some are mistakenly listed as G. c. peralta but see Talk:Giraffe#Incorrect photo caption), around 45 G. c. giraffa , around 20 G. c. angolensis, zero G. c. peralta (correct, see comment under G. c. antiquorum), zero G. c. thornicrofti (probably correct) and zero G. c. camelopardalis (actually very small number of this race in captivity, most in Al Ain Zoo [5]). For subspecies also be careful that distributions in this article are partially wrong. For most part the map in the taxobox got it right (compare for example distributions of G. c. giraffa and G. c. angolensis on map with text), but there are also two mistakes on the map: It completely left out G. c. rothschildi in Uganda (the two dots mistakenly included in G. c. camelopardalis) and west-central Kenya (at Lake Baringo). I guess the person who made the map didn't know that IUCN maps often don't mark subspecies ranges when they are very small and just included these in the nearest subspecies. Secondly, the isolated population in northeast DR Congo is G. c. camelopardalis. Not G. c. antiquorum as indicated on the wiki map. 62.107.214.63 (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is all good to update/add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with the above + a bit more. Added more photos to the gallery, meaning that it now has all 9 subspecies. I think this falls under the use recommended in WP:IG, but if someone believe this is wrong, feel free to remove it. • Rabo³ • 12:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Be nice to also expand upon taxonomic history. I'll see what I can find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ferreting around, this article would be good to add a note on. are you able to get the fulltext? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And [Thhttps://repository.up.ac.za/upspace/bitstream/2263/13994/1/Mitchell_Structure(2009).pdf this] too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC) added that myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Something on this Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

this one for the anatomy section. Agree the anatomy is dry but the fulltext should have some material on how relevant to animal's biology. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

this article is already referenced once, but also mentions in the abstract that origins of the neck are obscure, so the fulltext would be interesting to see. If you can't get it I think I can get fulltext. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There are actually 174 references on Web of Science if you type in "Web of Science", many papers are useful and worth incorporating. A few on parasites etc. Tricky to see where to draw the line. i can print out the lsit and we can see what is worth harvesting Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't access the fulltext any more than you but I added more info using some of the sources. LittleJerry (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way where should the information on the intestine go? The "diet" subsection? LittleJerry (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

yes, I think that is a good practical place for it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Done LittleJerry (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

can you find a ref for the tag? Otherwise I suspect the sentence can be deleted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done LittleJerry (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: I think this is looking okay.

Manual of Style compliance: - okay, one thing I neglected to mention thus far is the referencing. I find that formatting the web references using a Template:Cite web template very helpful, as it helps to add author, date webpage updated, publisher, and 'work" (i.e. parent website) all make for a professional-looking and informative reference. There are a few of these and these are the last few things to fix.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: - there are some bits and pieces on giraffe parasites that'd be good to add, but this is a sizeable article and many I think might be (sub)species specific. I suspect there is more on ecology. Both of those are not deal-breakers for me as I think we've covered quite a bit (for good article but not featured article status). One bit that needs a bit of a fix is the "popular culture" section. I will try to find and add some references but it really needs to be in a paragraph with some cohesive discussion rather than a bulleted list, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC) improved enough for GA status.

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: We're nearly there. You nominated one hefty article and I have tried to give this one alot of thought. Sorry about the delay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for taking the time. LittleJerry (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

I just changed the website links and some of the image captions. LittleJerry (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am formatting the refs. They need some filling out. e.g. books need isbns etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Done LittleJerry (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Giraffe sleep

There is something odd about these numbers. If the mean sleep is 1.9 hours, and the range is 10min to 2 hrs, then the lower values must be very rare, or just wrong. In addition, the cited reference only reports the mean, not the range. I have edited to report only the mean. Mukogodo (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Changed to correct sleep numbers and cited. ZooPro 07:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Giraffes eat acacia trees and live for around 25 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.92.103 (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Burnmeister, 17 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} citing reference 34: the first author's surname should be changed from van Stittert to van Sittert

Burnmeister (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I will perform that after I confirm the change is correct. Cheers ZooPro 08:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. ZooPro 08:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

name camelopardalis

It is not roman but greek. Camelopardalis (Greek: Καμηλοπάρδαλις) from Camel (Greek: Κάμηλος) and Pardalis (Greek: Πάρδαλις, ), due to having a long neck and face like a camel and many colors and/or spots like a Leopard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.124.42 (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rbouchoux, 7 April 2011

Minor grammar edit

In the section, Social structure and breeding habits the following sentence should be changed for grammatical reasons:

"Males prefer younger females, possibly became the latter are more fertile"

It should likely read:

"Males prefer younger females, possibly because the latter are more fertile"

Rbouchoux (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Giraffe feeding, Tanzania.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Giraffe feeding, Tanzania.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 12, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-10-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A giraffe extending its tongue to feed. Its tongue, lips and palate are tough enough to deal with sharp thorns in trees. Giraffes prefer trees of the genera Acacia, Commiphora and Terminalia. A giraffe requires less food than typical grazing animals, typically consuming 65 pounds (29 kg) of leaves and twigs daily, because the foliage it eats has more concentrated nutrition and it has a more efficient digestive system.Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Edit request

Female giraffes bare the sole reasonability for the raising of their young.

"Bare" should be "bear"; "reasonability" should be "responsibility." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.23.137 (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Query

Are we to presume this is either a young, or sickly giraffe? It's hard to tell from the video. Could someone please post the exact text from the source that says adult giraffes are relatively safe from predation, while the young and sickly may be preyed upon by lions? I'm also wondering if Sasata (talk · contribs) has reviewed this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The article and the source state that adult giraffes are mostly invulnerable to predators but lions may be able to kill them if they can get them to fall over. The article also states that giraffes of any age are commonly preyed on by lions in Kruger. The lion article also states that lions usually avoid adult giraffe but regulary hunt them in Kruger.

Anyway. the exact qoute from Estes is: Great size, superior vision (day and night), speed and formidable hooves make grown giraffes largely invulnerable to predators–although lions are able to kill even bull if they can get them down and secure a throat or nose hold. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, for anybody who doesn't have the books, Estes and Prothero are can be viewed online. LittleJerry (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. There has been professional footage (broadcast on Nat Geo Wild, IIRC) of lions killing a healthy adult male giraffe, but that -- and this video -- are anecdotal. I doubt we can deduce anything useful from this video. Even the fact that the giraffe appears to go down too easily may be misleading, e.g. if there are breaks in the shooting. --Stfg (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2012

There's a typo:

says "movie" when it should be "move"

142.167.187.169 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing it out--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Source spotchecking

Right, as per the last FAC, concerns were raised over the closeness of wording to the sources. What we need to do is check off each source. Once checked, the source can be noted here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I already re-paraphased the sources I have available, but I have a problem with the last two cites for [12]. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess you mean "de-paraphrased (?)" - "European hunters hunted them" is way different to "With the coming of the white man many more giraffe were killed" (unless I am missing something). I am trying to find the second last cite bit of info.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant the second-to-last two. Where it talks about how the giraffe parts where used. The info is not that far above the white men hunting giraffes. LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

OK FN 12 is now FN 13...but which one of the inlines was to check for paraphrasing? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This line Flyswatters, braclets, necklaces and thread were made from the tail hair;[10]:337[14] shields, sandals and drums from the skin and the strings of musical instruments from the tendons. LittleJerry (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• FN 1 - as per this version, is MSW - I am not sure why it is referencing the taxobox. As far as the second inline, it is somewhat misleading where it is as it references a sentence with a clause abut subpsecies being distinguished by markings. I'd move it...actually I am not sure where I'd use it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 21 April 2012

The second paragraph in the intro contains the following sentence: "Adult giraffes do not have strong social bonds, though they do gather in loose aggregations if they happen to be moving same general direction." Please insert "in the" between "moving same" Secret Snelk (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Nageh (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Giraffe Camouflage ?

I wonder. Roy Behrens, in his "Art of Dazzle Camouflage", quotes a 1939 Time magazine article:

Stripes and blotches were supposed to do for ships and tanks what stripes and blotches are supposed to do for giraffes and tigers.

Supposed to: but is there any actual evidence that the enormous "blotches" of giraffes actually make them less conspicuous? If so, why are the 9 subspecies all patterned differently? Could it be, perhaps, that these are signalling patterns (sexual selection, maybe, or a message to predators that here is a big, healthy, dangerous animal not worth attacking, to name just two possibilities), and not camouflage at all? I don't find a citation to another encyclopedia specially convincing here. How did that encyclopedia article's author know why giraffes are reticulated? well, I don't, and I can't find any scientific papers which provide evidence. Do you know of any actual evidence? Or are we just repeating an urban legend? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The role of the fur pattern and its phylogeny has been studied extensively, and there is strong indication that it serves as camouflage, particularly for calves. Mitchell & Skinner, which is available as reference 8 in the article, includes a discussion and refers to other study papers. There are several encyclopedias mentioning the role of the pattern, including R. Estes, J. Kingdon, and Skinner & Chimimba, so I'm a bit surprised about your statement that no other encyclopedia would state such. Nageh (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very useful. Perhaps the bit about cam for calves (but not necessarily, or so strongly, for adults) needs to be made in the article.

BTW I didn't say no encyclo stated such, I was referring to the citation to another encyclo in the article which as I said DID state such and doubting whether it was based on primary sources. My point is that the story has been repeated endlessly in textbooks, popular natural histories and encyclopedias with little sign of where it all came from. Encouraging that calves are cammed up. The obvious suggestion is then that the adults are using colour for signalling as well as cam, or perhaps instead of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

range?

Article would be nice with a map showing the old range (I guess pre guns) and the current one. Show the shrinkage. Not just the subspecies.

64.134.168.97 (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

P.s. congrats on promoting such an important topic. 170,000 per month! WOW!

There is (or was in 1973) a small herd further west in Mali. They had their own Government employed guardian. In 2008 I was told by a buyer from BAT that BAT were sponsoring the Guardian. Bebofpenge (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Total numbers?

So, how many giraffes are there in the wild in total, approximately? This doesn't appear in the article.. it seems like a pretty basic thing that one would hope a featured article might have. Also, it would be nice to compare it to the approximate number of elephants. Thank you. 24.84.4.202 (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It states it in the very last sentence. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Giraffe Mikumi National Park.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Giraffe Mikumi National Park.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 27, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-01-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 17:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis, ssp. tippelskirchi shown here) is the tallest living terrestrial animal and the largest ruminant. There are nine subspecies, which are distinguished by their coat patterns. Fully grown giraffes stand 5–6 m (16–20 ft) tall, with males taller than and weighing nearly twice as much as females. The giraffe's scattered range extends from Chad in the north to South Africa in the south, and from Niger in the west to Somalia in the east. Giraffes usually inhabit savannas, grasslands, and open woodlands. Their primary food source is acacia leaves, which they can browse at heights which most other herbivores cannot reach.Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Edit request: Male body mass

The average male body mass is listed is 1600 kg in the current wikipedia page. This is definitely not average - it is a rather heavy bull. J.D. Skinner and C.T. Chimimba lists the average male mass as 1192 kg (range 973-1395 kg), and the average female mass as 828 kg (range 703.0-950 kg) (2005. Mammals of the Southern African Subregion, Third Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cape Town South Africa). Accordingly, Mitchell, van Sittert and Skinner (2009. Sexual selection is not the origin of the long neck in giraffes. Journal of Zoology vol 278 pp 281-286) list their giraffe male sample as ranging from 188-1512 kg. In the sample of Van Sittert, Skinner and Mitchell (2010. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B. 134B pp 469 - 479) the masses were given as ranging from 184 to 1413 kg. Therefore, I would agree with Skinner and Chimimba's statements about the average mass of male (1191.8 kg) and female (828 kg) giraffes.

Burnmeister (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 October 2013

In Taxonomy\Subspecies, one finds the following entry for the Rhodesian giraffe:

"The Rhodesian giraffe, G. c. thornicrofti, named for Harry Scott Thornicroft, is also called the Rhodesian giraffe; it is restricted to the Luangwa Valley in eastern Zambia. No more than 1,500 remain in the wild, with none kept in zoos."

In the stub on the Rhodesian giraffe, one finds that the subspecies is also called the Thornicroft giraffe; I'd suggest that the entry here be changed to remove the bolded redundancy and possibly also reflect the fact that the subspecies has multiple common names. I'd change such trivia myself, but, you know, semi-protection lock-down being what it is... 130.132.173.179 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Approval Request - "Giraffe Fighting"

Can someone take a look at this sandbox article and see how it can be improved? Is the quality of the article sufficient enough for it to be a sub-page of the main giraffe article? —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No. 174.124.247.225 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

phonetics?

I'm surprised there's no pronunciation at the start of this article, not sure if it's pronounced "djiraff" or "djiraff-ee" in english, in french the e at the end (une girafe) is not pronounced but I'm pretty sure I've heard it in english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.58.138 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2014

In the "History and cultural significance" section, at the end of the paragraph on presence in modern culture, it may be worth adding that the "Imguraffe" is the mascot of the popular image hosting website imgur.com. See for reference http://imgur.com/blog/2012/03/31/introducing-the-imguraffe/. Starvegal (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: too trivial - we don't want to start a list of every use of a giraffe in a company logo. - Arjayay (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"See Also" section

The see also section at the bottom of the article mentions safety with power wires. Is this a joke, or something that was mentioned in the article that I might have missed? Just curious about it... 88.105.199.153 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Sam

Very strange. The only thing I can think of why these two topics would be related would possibly be that giraffes may have an increased risk of running into power lines.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request Necks

I think that it is important to further explore these two hypotheses regarding the adaptation that is the neck of the giraffe. It is important to add a counter argument to the "competing browsers" hypothesis by stating the following: There are a number of strong arguments against the competing browsers hypothesis in that giraffe spend fifty percent or more of their time feeding at or below shoulder height. The heavy majority of the time that males are seen foraging with a fully extended neck is when they are in a dominant role among a group of females." Hanna.225 (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Also, there needs to be some elaboration on the hypothesis regarding the "Necks-for-Sex" hypothesis (and this popular hypothesis name should be explicitly stated in this section). It should be stated that the longer and heavier the neck of the giraffe the more likely the male giraffe is to be dominant in a giraffe population and that long necks are actually selected for by female giraffes during mating season (similar to how peahens select for peacocks with elaborate feathers). Hanna.225 (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Arising during November 2011 copy edit

Overlink

The article links to well-known countries, contrary to WP:OVERLINK. I have left it so (but will remove any duplicated links) recognising that it may help readers who don't know exactly where all the African countries are, but be aware that this may be challenged at FAC. --Stfg (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't contrary to WP:OVERLINK at all, I'm not at all understanding how you extracted 'well-known countries'. The examples given specifically encourage the usage consistent with this article. Has your opinion on this changed? 166.137.242.55 (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Dated statements

In the Subspecies section, I've placed one {{As of?}} tag, but could probably have placed 20. All statments about estimated populations in the wild, and zoo populations, need to be qualified as to when. This would definitely be picked up at FAC. --Stfg (talk)

What if "it is estimated" is removed and the text simply states that those are there population numbers. LittleJerry (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You might be shot at dawn :-) The point is that animal populations change, both in the wild and in zoos, therefore they are information that will date. Let me finish the rest of the edit first, then I'll see if I can think of a way to avoid having 20 {{As of}}s. The sources for the population estimates are mostly the same for all the subspecies, so it should be possible. --Stfg (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've changed "Currently nine subspecies are recognized" to "Up to nine subspecies are recognized", because the sources vary (e.g. MSW3 only lists six). This is less likely to date overnight, and better reflects the uncertainties described in the previous sentences. Immediately afterwards I've added a parenthesis about the populations, using {{as of}}, stating 2010 because that is the access date currently given for the references used. I didn't check whether the 2011 ISIS has different figures. For Al Ain zoo, since 2003 is quite old, I've inserted an extra ref to their web site, confirming that they still have some Nubian giraffes. I hope this covers it. --Stfg (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Notation T1, T2, C7 etc

I've removed incorrect wikilinks. In the present context, these notations refer to thoracic/cervical vertebrae, not spinal nerves. --Stfg (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please check statement

In the neck section, we have "This advantage is real as giraffes can and do feed up to 5 m, while most of their competitors, kudu, can only feed up to about 2 meters (6 ft 7 in).^[35]". I can only get the abstract for ref 35, and it doesn't clarify this, but I don't believe that kudu are "most" of giraffes' competitors. Perhaps not even their closest competitors - gerenuk can reach higher, can't they? - and what about elephants? Ref 35 is only considering three of the competitors: kudu, steenbok (tiny!) and impala. Please could someone check out what ref 35 is really saying, and clarify it? --Stfg (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I found the full article here. It also mentions elephants. Will you add it in or should I? LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well found. Because the paper discusses so few species, and draws such tentative conclusions, I don't feel it's justified to cite it to support statements about "most" of their competitors. But perhaps common sense would let us change "most of ther competitors, kudu" (which doesn't quite make sense anyway) into "even quite large competitors, such as kudu". What do you think? If you're OK with this, I'm happy to do it. --Stfg (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for putting the URL in the cite. --Stfg (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please check (2)

In the section on circulatory system, we have: "The jugular veins also contain several (most commonly seven) valves to minimise blood flowing back into the head and assist it getting to the inferior vena cava and right atrium in the same situation.^[41]". By the way, the link under the title for ref 41 gets a certificate error warning; the DOI link is fine. I don't understand the statement "in the same situation" here, and am not quite sure that the text here in WP is saying exactly what the ref is saying. Please could an expert review this and clarify if necessary? --Stfg (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Found it here. Same question. LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Again well found. I believe I now understand this, and it is just the words "in the same situation" that confused me (basically: same as what?). I'm going to bed now (I'm in UK), but I can fix this up in the morning.

By the way, I'm a little puzzled that the URL is an IP address. It seems to belong to the University of Pretoria. Do you know what gives here? --Stfg (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what that's about. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for putting the URL in the cite. --Stfg (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Page nembers needed ...

... for ref 55 (ref name="Prothero 2003"). (In the Cultural significance section, 2nd para, I wanted to check whether "Arab travelers" means travelers who were Arabs, or travelers (of unspecified nationality) in Arabia, but page numbers are needed for all four uses). --Stfg (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(My silly oversight.) --Stfg (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

† — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.119.106 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2015

Mention of the legal status of the giraffe in Tanzania ("and is protected by law.[74] Unathorised killing can result in imprisonment.[75]") should be moved from "History and cultural significance" to "Exploitation and conservation status".

155.138.243.110 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

fur pattern

I made an image with the fur patterns of the nine subspecies. Any use for that in the article? Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Source check

The article contains a claim about the giraffe having a rete mirabile that defends it from blood pressure changes when the head is lowered and raised. According to this question/answer on quora this may not be what's happening. Can someone verify that this source is reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitzanms (talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Distribution map

What dou you think, this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giraffa_camelopardalis_distribution.svg distribution map would need an update based on this one: http://www.giraffeconservation.org/giraffe_facts.php?pgid=40 http://www.giraffespotter.org/Learn/DistrubutionMaps ? User:Spinofan0731 10:33, 13 december 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

I request the addition of a brief summary of the giraffe genome sequence published May 17, 2016 in Nature Communications. I am the corresponding author. I recommend that this be added to the end of the section on "Taxonomy and Evolution". The recommended text to add is as follows:

The Masai giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchi) genome is 2.9Gb in length [ref#] whereas its closest extant relative, Okapi (Okapia johnstoni) genome length is 3.3Gb [ref#]. Giraffe and okapi genes are highly similar overall with 19.4% of proteins being identical [ref#]. Giraffe and okapi genes are equally distantly related to cattle, suggesting that giraffe’s unique characteristics are not due to an overall faster rate of evolution. The divergence of time of giraffe and okapi from a common ancestor is estimated to be 11.5 mya [ref#]. Comparative genomic analysis identified a small group of regulatory genes in giraffe that may be responsible for giraffe's stature and associated cardiovascular adaptations [ref#]. Reference:

<ref> Agaba M, Ishengoma E, Miller WC, McGrath BC, Hudson CN, Bedoya Reina OC, Ratan A, Burhans R, Chikhi R, Medvedev P, Praul CA, Wu-Cavener L, Wood B, Robertson H, Penfold L, Cavener DR. (2016) "Giraffe genome sequence reveals clues to its unique morphology and physiology." Nat Commun. 2016 May 17;7:11519. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11519. PMID: 27187213 <ref> 71.58.72.154 (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and Done, with minor tweaks to improve readability for a general audience. Always a pleasure to see a practising scientist take the time to contribute to Wikipedia. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

African words for "giraffe"

LittleJerry has reverted my deletion of the catalogue of African names for the giraffe under "Etymology", saying "Native names important." Pursuant to WP:BRD, I invite her or him (and anybody else who's interested) to discuss that decision here. Why is an undifferentiated catalogue of foreign names for an animal important for English Wikipedia? What is it but a collection of trivia? Does the article, Deer, include an assortment of European, Asian, and Amerindian words for deer? Should it?

If such a catalogue should exist at all, which I think unlikely, why should it be given under "Etymology", when none of those names has any historical connection with the word, giraffe? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If the people building the deer article what to include non-English names for deer then they are free to do so. There are plenty of articles that include native names for animals, including Koala. LittleJerry (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

LittleJerry fails to answer any of my questions, as well as to support his or her assertion that the native words for giraffe are "important". Other than to speakers of those languages, why are those words important? Specifically, why are they important to readers of English Wikipedia? Compare Lion, Bear, Bison, Gazelle. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are these words important? Hmm... maybe because they come from the languages of the people who live with them? LittleJerry (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Which would matter if this were Kihehe Wikipedia, but it's not. It's English Wikipedia. Providing the Luo word for giraffe doesn't add to our understanding of the history of the English word (or of the Latin and Greek words used by English-speaking scientists to classify giraffes). It is not etymology: it's trivia. If it were important to list the words for giraffe in the languages of the people who live with them, it would surely be important to include the Khoikhoi word, but you haven't. What about the Setswana word? The Afan Oromoo word? On what basis do you discriminate? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

None of those words are available. LittleJerry (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Those words certainly are available to anybody who can be bothered to go to a good library! Let's be inclusive and not Western-centric, but only if we don't have to get up from our computers! J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)